NONSENSICAL LOGIC ON EQUAL MARRIAGE DEBATE

Geoffrey Alderman’s suggestion that marriage equality for homosexuals should only be allowed if supporters would also allow it for incestuous couples is nonsensical ( Comment, March 23). Incestuous homosexual marriage would be illegal just as incestuous heterosexual marriage is.

Few, if any, are naturally exclusively attracted to family members, whereas many are exclusively attracted to people of their own gender. There is a naturally occurring homosexual minority in many species, as in humans. Thus marriage equality for homosexuals is a pressing issue, where marriage for incestuous couples is obviously not. Such peculiar and desperate arguments as Alderman’s show the weakness of the case against ending marriage inequality for gay people. Jonathan Sacerdoti jonathan@sacerdoti.com

Suppose religion defined theft as taking property from someone of the opposite gender. Should that person be of the same gender, this would be lawful. Then the state makes theft illegal, and allows for prosecution of theft from victims of the same gender, but with a more lenient punishment. Does this make any sense? I hope not.

The definition of marriage is irrelevant. It is for the government (and democratic process) to define mar- riage, as marriage has a civil meaning, so the religious view of it is irrelevant.

Denying homosexuals the right to marry should properly, then, result in the abolition of marriage as a legallymeaningful concept. Have civil partnerships for all. If you want to stand under a chuppah, that’s your choice. Daniel Blaston Year 12, JFS danielblaston@hotmail.com

Given that Geoffrey Alderman has consistently defended the gay community in the past, it was disappointing to see him repeat the tired, argument that somehow allowing consenting adults of the same sex to marry will open the door to incest marriage.

It’s a shame Alderman didn’t think it was sufficient enough to defend us once again, when he clearly understands what gay marriage is about: a symbolic social statement, a strong signal to society, that the unions entered into by gays and lesbians (which are in law the same as those of heterosexuals) are not “less than” them, socially or otherwise.

Alderman bemoans the lack of comment from the chief rabbis, as do I. But it’s sad that a normally levelheaded individual has used a poor argument to defend bigotry. Gemma Hersh Fortune Avenue, Edgware, HA8